While the media continues to spout moral outrage at Australia’s behaviour during the second test, India’s complaint against Brad Hogg for racism has garnered far less attention. In what cynics claim is an act of pure revenge for the Australian’s protest against Harbhajan Singh, India has made an official complaint after Hogg said that “I can’t wait to run through you bastards.”

The comments were made to Indian captain, Anil Kumble and wicketkeeper, Mahendra Dhoni.

In making the complaint, the Indians have managed to achieve what many thought impossible: behave in a worse manner than the Australians.

Not only is the petulant Indian cricket board still effectively blackmailing the ICC over Singh’s racism suspension, but they have now launched a revenge claim over a comment which does not appear to be racist in its intent or effect.

The Indians claimed that Hogg’s comments breached Section 3.3 of the ICC’s Code of Conduct (which coincidentally, was the exact same section under which Singh was penalised). Section 3.3 provides that players or team officials are barred from:

Using language or gestures that offends, insults, humiliates, intimidates, threatens, disparages or vilifies another person on the basis of that person’s race, religion, gender, colour, descent, or national or ethic origin.

The Indians argue that the term “bastard” is offensive in India as it implies that one is of a low social standing.

There is no doubt that the term is offensive, probably far more offensive than Hogg actually intended, however, the comment does not seem to fit within the categories from section 3.3 of the Code. In clutching at straws, India claims that Hogg’s comments vilified the players on the basis of “descent’. Upon reading the Code, it would be difficult for anyone with legal training to imply that the intention of word “descent” relates to the marital status of one’s parents. The intention of the section is ostensibly aimed clearly at racism (as can be implied by the surrounding words). Perhaps the Indians would have a stronger case if the ICC changed the rule to include the term “parents’ marital status”.

The Indians further claimed that the term indicates that one is of a low social standard – by implication, had Hogg called Kumble a “beggar” would he be facing the same charges?

Further, there would be doubt whether the language actually offended, insulted, humiliated, intimidated, threatened, disparaged or vilified the Indian players. Unless Kumble or Dhoni actually are ‘bastards’, proving that they were actually insulted may be difficult. For example, the term “N _ _ _ _ r” is extremely insulting to many Americans – however, if you use that slur towards a white person, it would be difficult for them to make a claim of racism. Presumably, for the offence to made out, there needs to be an element of truth underlying the comment.

Harbajan Singh was counseled not to use the term “monkey” towards Andrew Symonds. The term is clearly racist and Symonds had in the past, complained about such comments being made. The Indian team was told prior to the tour to specifically avoid using that term. Despite the warning, Singh was heard by three players as calling Symonds a “monkey”.

To charge Hogg under the same law is to grossly diminish Singh’s offence and trivialise the racist actions which occurred – but then again, that is probably exactly what the Indians are trying to achieve.